12-14

Under 12

I favor abolition.

Federal Farmer has suggested that I start a thread about the age of sexual consent so that it can be categorized with my other lunatic views. So here it is.

I believe that the age of consent is an unnecessary restriction on youth sexual freedom that should be abolished. Allow me to explain the specific reasoning behind my opposition to the concept of an age of consent, and my support for its abolition. I believe that the support given to age of consent laws is utterly misguided, and would be better focused towards targeting legitimate sexual offenses such as violent rape and sexual assault or battery. To equate consensual sexual relationships that happened to violate an Orwellian and intrusive law with these crimes is utterly offensive to true rape victims. One might even compare such an appalling assessment to the victim being raped all over again; an addition of insult to injury.

It is claimed that legal adults naturally possess a great degree of authority over minors. I reject this as a premise of ageist bigotry, similar to the bigotry that gave rise to anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting relationships between whites and persons of color. I also consider it contradictory and intellectually dishonest for pundits to claim that adolescents are “out of control” and constantly defying and challenging adults on the one hand, and then to claim that they are meek and mild weaklings who can easily be exploited by adults on the other.

If the reasoning behind the age of consent is to protect minors from the physical dominance of adults, then that reasoning could just as easily be applied to all heterosexual relationships, as it is a biological fact that men are typically a good deal stronger than women.

If the reasoning behind the age of consent is to protect minors from sexual activities because they are not emotionally capable of “handling” them, then I am puzzled as to why this standard is only applied to minor-adult sexual relationships, and not to their relationships with each other, at least in the legal realm. (Perhaps pundits and policy makers secretly realize the invalidity and intrusiveness of such laws?) I might also add that emotional maturity is such a fickle and ambiguous concept that it cannot effectively be regulated or measured by an age restriction. Such a law would deliver a great injustice and disservice to many. I would also add that the idea of sexual expression being a deeply emotional act is a mere social construction. While it could theoretically serve as such, it need not in all cases. Sexual expression could be recreational as well as intimate and emotional, as we have seen through the sexual practices of many non-Western and non-Christianized cultures.

I would also add that, contrary to popular belief, the health benefits of sexual expression are numerous, and include physical, mental, and emotional benefits such as increased vigor and vitality, and reduced stress. Furthermore, I would add that sexual expression is a natural and healthy behavior for adolescents, as they are biological adults, and were largely regarded as such until the Industrial Revolution. Adolescence itself is also a social construction. As was documented by Margaret Mead in Samoa, sexual expression is a healthy behavior for adolescents. None of the “teen turmoil” presently regarded as biologically motivated in the West was exhibited in Samoa. The dreaded emotional consequences of adolescent sexual behavior were also curiously absent in Samoa. (Could it be that they do not exist?) Mead did us a tremendous service by discovering these facts. (In case you will respond by citing the work of Mead critic Derek Freeman, I would point out that his book was officially condemned by the American Anthropological Association, and I believe that he sorely misrepresents Mead’s views.)

I believe that youth would be better protected by conventional rape and sexual assault laws than an "age of consent."

On which side of the AoC debate would you sit? Personally I'm not a big fan of underaged sex, although my reasons are less for the purity stance of most, and rather I feel that young teens have almost zero knowledge of repercussions and that makes it a very dangerous thing, teen pregnancy is costly. It causes the new mothers to miss a lot of school, most don't graduate, destined for a lack of education and low wage jobs and a lesser pool of adequate guys as many want their own children, not someone elses. This isn't reason for laws though, but reason for better sex education.

On the other hand I don't like adults going after young teens 13,14, 15...But I have a hard time holding my mind on the justification for extreme incarcerative laws and permanent labeling of "sex offender." the cases that come to mind mostly are the 17 year olds sleeping with 14 year olds or soome similar range, these 17 year olds become felons, sex offenders, treated no differently than someone who sexually molested a 10 year old... there is a huge difference between 10 and 14. Emotional and physically, 14 year olds are reaching or have reached sexual maturity. Their bodies are telling them yes, the world tells them no... how often to teens listen to the world? My biggest hang up, perhaps its just societal and I cannot shake it, culturally it bothers me, most things I separate cultural belief from my opinion on the subjects, even when it bothers me, but I can't really shake this one; Adults going after 13, 14, 15 year olds, to me, this just seems wrong. But I'm on the fence if its a crime... I cannot bring myself to say YES someone deserves prison for sleeping with a young teen consensually. If the teen says yes, the teen says yes. The laws make the statement that they are not of age to determine correctly if they wish to have sex. The problem I feel with this number game is that at 13, teens are very often treated as adults by the courts. at 13, shoplifting can get you the same sentence, to the same jail, as me at 29 years old, were I to steal...this of course is dependent on the court system, but nothing stops it from happening and it does all the time. So the courts acknowledge that through an act of crime, a 13 year old has the same ability to reason the responsibilities and consequences as a 20 year old. This is my biggest blockade to feeling ok about current AoC laws. a teen cannot choose what to do with their body, yet if they commit a crime, the court can say it was their choice, an adult choice. This bothers me.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you have said about the inherent injustice of criminalizing consensual relationships, but I disagree with your analysis of teen pregnancy. According to a federal study of teen pregnancy, (http://youthfacts.org/teenmoth.html)

Our results suggest that much of the “concern” that has been registered regarding teenage childbearing is misplaced, at least based on its consequences for the subsequent educational and economic attainment of teen mothers. In particular, our estimates imply that the “poor” outcomes attained by such women cannot be attributed, in a causal sense, primarily to their decision to begin their childbearing at an early age. Rather, it appears that these outcomes are more the result of social and economic circumstances than they are the result of the early childbearing of these women. Furthermore, our estimates suggest that simply delaying their childbearing would not greatly enhance their educational attainment or subsequent earnings or affect their family structure… For most outcomes, the adverse consequences of early childbearing are short-lived. For annual hours of work and earnings, we find that a teen mother would have lower levels of each at older ages if they had delayed their childbearing (emphasis mine).

Click to expand...

Moreover, I do not believe that the eugenics lobbies would state their agenda so openly if it was an issue of black or Hispanic pregnancy, despite the fact that their children encounter greater social difficulties as well.

I'm male. Does that mean I'm snapping photos of toddlers in public parks and bringing them home to jack off on?

Click to expand...

It is really hard to say.

so tell me

a 60 year old man and a 7 year old girl. He tells her he will buy her a new bike if she plays along with him and she wants the bike bad enough that she agrees to be sexual with him. Do you think this should be legal?

a 60 year old man and a 7 year old girl. He tells her he will buy her a new bike if she plays along with him and she wants the bike bad enough that she agrees to be sexual with him. Do you think this should be legal?

Click to expand...

I think this is a sign of the exploitative hierarchical authority relationships caused by capitalism and wage slavery, but I would not view it as inherently worse than other forms of wage slavery, no.

how about this, logic? Age of consent with a age gap limit as you see in my state. if your 16 and he is 19, its legal, if your 16 and your 23 and in a position of athoritity over her ( teacher, boss, ext,) its not. law here is 16 but if you are 4 years older , and in a position of athority its illegal.

seems a fair idea to me...

though I would not go under 18 regardless...my personal limit is 21 as I am 30.

how about this, logic? Age of consent with a age gap limit as you see in my state. if your 16 and he is 19, its legal, if your 16 and your 23 and in a position of athoritity over her ( teacher, boss, ext,) its not. law here is 16 but if you are 4 years older , and in a position of athority its illegal.

seems a fair idea to me...

though I would not go under 18 regardless...my personal limit is 21 as I am 30.

Click to expand...

Oregon is simular. A girl can be with a guy or another girl who is no more than 3 years older or younger, until they are 18 then how ever much older doesnt matter but it still 3 years on the younger part. Anyone caught doing anything sexual with anyone more than a 3 year age gap is tried for child molestation even if the person is a minor.

The first thing that must be addressed for this issue to be properly considered is exactly what is meant by the phrase "age of consent". Are we to strictly consider it for the purposes of this discussion completely separate from all of the other issues where the State has a compelling interest in the various "age of consent" or "age of majority" laws? If so, it will merely serve as an entertaining academic discussion, that has no real meaning outside the strict context of this thread. If we are, on the other hand, to properly consider the "age of consent" as it applies to all other aspects of our society, then we must consider it in the context of the age at which a young person may drive, vote, enlist in the military, enter into a binding contract, purchase alcohol or a firearm.

I reject as a waste of time any notion that it is intellectually honest, or even prudent to engage in the former, so I shall address the latter.

While there is no argument that sexual relations between consenting adults is of no concern of the governments, except under the most narrow exceptions, the fact remains that the State does have a compelling interest when that conduct is among those who are of an age, adjudged by the State, to be mentally inadequate to be able to provide informed consent. The same principles apply when dealing with those who are of the age of majority, yet are mentally disabled, and therefore not able to make a proper "informed consent" to engage in sexual relations.

The same standard applies to all aspects of life, as the State, having a compelling interest in securing the blessings of liberty to it's citizens, must also ensure that it denies to those who are unable, through disability of mental capability, from engaging in any activity that could render them responsible for damages, debt, or disrepute before they have the ability to fully comprehend the responsibilities they are undertaking.

If we are to assume that there should be no "age of consent" for engaging in sexual relations, from which another life may be formed, are we then to abolish the "age of consent" for which one may purchase a firearm? For which one may operate a motor vehicle? For which one may purchase and consume alcohol and tobacco? For which they may enter into contracts? For which one may enlist in the military service and therefore be sent into combat? NO, of course not, therefore there is no logical reason to believe that doing away with the "age of consent" for sexual relations would be any more advantageous to society.

Even when we refer to the father of American jurisprudence, Lord William Blackstone, he clearly defines the age of majority at 21 years of age, yet he also acknowledges throughout his commentaries that those younger than 21 years of age may engage in other activities, including marriage, at the age of 12 for girls and 14 for boys, WITH their parents consent. The fact is that the various "ages of consent" are intentionally graduated, dependent upon the degree of responsibility attendant with the right or privilege being bestowed, congruent with the average mental ability of the person to honor the responsibilities that accompany those rights and privileges.

The first thing that must be addressed for this issue to be properly considered is exactly what is meant by the phrase "age of consent". Are we to strictly consider it for the purposes of this discussion completely separate from all of the other issues where the State has a compelling interest in the various "age of consent" or "age of majority" laws? If so, it will merely serve as an entertaining academic discussion, that has no real meaning outside the strict context of this thread. If we are, on the other hand, to properly consider the "age of consent" as it applies to all other aspects of our society, then we must consider it in the context of the age at which a young person may drive, vote, enlist in the military, enter into a binding contract, purchase alcohol or a firearm.

I reject as a waste of time any notion that it is intellectually honest, or even prudent to engage in the former, so I shall address the latter.

While there is no argument that sexual relations between consenting adults is of no concern of the governments, except under the most narrow exceptions, the fact remains that the State does have a compelling interest when that conduct is among those who are of an age, adjudged by the State, to be mentally inadequate to be able to provide informed consent. The same principles apply when dealing with those who are of the age of majority, yet are mentally disabled, and therefore not able to make a proper "informed consent" to engage in sexual relations.

The same standard applies to all aspects of life, as the State, having a compelling interest in securing the blessings of liberty to it's citizens, must also ensure that it denies to those who are unable, through disability of mental capability, from engaging in any activity that could render them responsible for damages, debt, or disrepute before they have the ability to fully comprehend the responsibilities they are undertaking.

If we are to assume that there should be no "age of consent" for engaging in sexual relations, from which another life may be formed, are we then to abolish the "age of consent" for which one may purchase a firearm? For which one may operate a motor vehicle? For which one may purchase and consume alcohol and tobacco? For which they may enter into contracts? For which one may enlist in the military service and therefore be sent into combat? NO, of course not, therefore there is no logical reason to believe that doing away with the "age of consent" for sexual relations would be any more advantageous to society.

Even when we refer to the father of American jurisprudence, Lord William Blackstone, he clearly defines the age of majority at 21 years of age, yet he also acknowledges throughout his commentaries that those younger than 21 years of age may engage in other activities, including marriage, at the age of 12 for girls and 14 for boys, WITH their parents consent. The fact is that the various "ages of consent" are intentionally graduated, dependent upon the degree of responsibility attendant with the right or privilege being bestowed, congruent with the average mental ability of the person to honor the responsibilities that accompany those rights and privileges.

Click to expand...

I think basicly when can you get in the pants of a kid without going to prison for it

Incidentally, you believe that the age of consent should be 18 or higher, Rob? Are you aware that it is 16 in more than 30 states?

Click to expand...

I only said 18+ because there was no option that laid out the gray areas.

If a two 17 years old are dating and go off and have sex, then fine, it does not bother me.

My voting for 18+ came because I think for age differences not to matter, you need to be a legal adult. I do not think many people are going to be terribly upset if some high school kids are having sex, the problem is when a 30 year old wants to have sex with a 14 year old in my view.